hutcheson

I believe you may regard it as settled that your site will not be put in that or any other category. It has no content that can be reviewed, and that's that. The other sites will be reviewed, and I do not want to prejudice that review or any actions taken as a result: but remember that ODP editors will not feel obligated to respond to a complaint that (AFTER investigation) seems to have been made in bad faith.

I understand your feelings. But we just can't build a directory that way -- just imagine how many listings walmart.com would need (in Shopping and Regional both!), and so users need to learn how to use this kind of directory we CAN build. Not everyone can -- and so some people stick to search engines. That's fine: we build for them that can come.

>If that the case, We have removed the link i.e. member of Rajasthan Travel Guide from the Home Page and the Affiliates web page. >If you visit the web site, You will find this is a independent web site dealing with only hotels in Rajasthan. >We do hope that, since now we have removed the links you will consider our submission. By removing the link, you have indubitably proven that the sites are NOT independent, and the single site should NOT have two listings there. It then becomes irrelevant how much of the subsite's content is unique. The company already has a listing in that category, and it is fully within their power to add links to as much content as they wish. Tell them to do that, and not to try these deceitful spamming practices.

No need to submit to the locality. I moved your other duplicate submission there, where in due time (usually fairly quickly) a regional editor will have a look at it.

>Company A has no problem in receiving a top ranking in your directory when I do a search for "data entry software". Company B does not fair nearly as well when I implement the same search. The reason for this is simple. ODP search has no concept whatever of rank. The order in which sites are returned has nothing whatever to do with which categories they are in, or how many times each keyword is repeated in the title or description or even the URL, or any other characteristic over which the site owner or the ODP editor has any control whatsoever. Think of it as random, or if you are more technically inclined, "deterministic but indeterminate". There's no rank. There's no criteria for ordering. There are only sites found and sites not found. All else is illusion.

Wait for what? ODP search is never going to be a major source of visitors. You've gotten most of what ODP can give (the ODP listing which is spidered by Google, etc.). The ODP RDF (which goes to the AOL and Google directories, etc.) will come eventually, but won't be a REALLY big source of visitors either. It's time for you to get to work on your website promotion strategy (which most of us here are not competant to help you with). (But we at the ODP do thank you for letting us know about your site.)

>1. Does search act differently depending on which directory my site is in? This question is either about DMOZ search (in which case the answer is irrelevant--hardly anyone uses it) or it's about some real search engine (in which case ODP editors probably aren't in a position to know the answer -- and if they did know, they wouldn't know when it would change.) 2. If site is added to russian directory, is it possible to be added to english version later? The ODP's practice is to consider a site for listing in ever applicable language. In each language, the site is judged ONLY on the content in that language, not at all on the content or listings for other languages. 3. If main url is added, is it possible to add sub-urls (say, http://www.rususa.com/fun/radio as resource for live radio feeds) to DMOZ later? Sub-URLs are "the exception" and you should not expect to get them--most sites don't, and we couldn't build a directory without processes that assured most sites didn't. But ... it is possible.

>So what is going to be done about it? Well, we're working on steps 3 and 4. >Are we as site developers and business owners going to be given a very clear definition about which sites are appropriate? Yes. It's called "unique content". The editors' guidelines are public: the next revision will probably specifically mention "lead generators" as a counterexample. >Or is that still going to be left up to the editor in charge of that category? To some extent, yes. "Editor discretion" is already specifically mentioned in the submitters' guidelines. >And by clear I mean just that. Very specific guidelines that can be checked by anyone. At one point the editor in question had placed a stipulation that I as a site owner/developer must prove that I have a unique network of clients for my leads. That should obviously be considered absurd, and that stipulation has since been removed. Actually, that is about the best attempt that could be made to delineate what "unique content" would mean for lead generators. But I agree, even that is ultimately futile, because it is (as you say) uncheckable (by the site visitor, including the editors). >Are the sites that are obviously inappropriate going to be removed? With the usual stipulation that it must be obvious to the responsible editor, yes. >Is the editor that allowed these sites to be included going to be removed? We don't discuss editor abuse investigations, or the actions taken as a result. But, as a general observation: these sites might well have been added under the old guidelines, and/or in ignorance of the new ones. >Since lead generation sites are a major industry on the internet, is there going to be a category established for lead generation sites? Absolutely and certainly not. MLM's are a major industry on the net. Affiliate hotel reservation sites are a major industry. Nigerian money-laundering scams are a major industry. vstores, SMC, the list is endless. The ODP doesn't list major industries, it lists sites with information. We've tried the "quarantined category" approach with MLMs. The objective fact was, it took editor effort, didn't help our users, and didn't significantly slow the rate of inappropriate submittals. They're gone now, not a single user complained, and we just treat the sites as collaborative spam -- which is really what they always were. We like the new way better. >...since keeping these sites out of the DMOZ is something that appears to be beyond the scope of few hard working editors that are available. And why don't we just fire all the police, since they preventing crime seems to be beyond their ability? Why don't we shut down the hospitals till people stop dying there? Why don't we all quit our day jobs to read e-mail spam, since there seems to be no way to stop it? I think some things are worth doing, even if they can't be done perfectly. >But the DMOZ has a category for information for rcreation drug use. To make a judgement call that lead generation sites are to not be included, but to include sites that offer information about taking drugs is a strange stance to take. The ODP includes sites with information about most of the evils in the world, real or imagined. That information may be used for good or ill, by police or organized crime lords. The only limitation along these lines is that "editors should not includes SITES that are ILLEGAL" -- note that a site may be immoral without being illegal, and may be ABOUT illegality without being illegal. Information about drug use is not ILLEGAL (in the U.S.) So Microsoft sites are listed in spite of fraud, restraint of trade, breach of contract, theft of patent and copyrights, perjury, labor code violations, or any of the other activities that keep the world's largest legal firm gainfully employed. And we wouldn't reject affiliate sites because of ethical objections to their business model, or MLM sites because of their essentially fraudulent implicit promises of fortune and happiness. The ODP includes sites with content, in the form of unique relevant information. MLM, affiliate links, doorways, and lead generators aren't unique information.

Yes, I can see how a change in the guidelines would be surprising to those who hadn't been subjected to the abuse. I suppose I can't blame you. For a long time, some of us had dealt with particular spammers in various particular topics without noticing the overall pattern either. (And, of course, many editors aren't yet aware of the new ruling. That's the nature of part-time volunteer communities.) No, this particular category was not the one that raised the issue. But this may help clear up some of the confusion: "The explicit rule about lead generation sites is fairly new... That, and ... abuse, is why you see some of those sites currently in the directory." The nature of guideline-refining is that it happens in three steps: 1) crud slips into the pool. 2) crud builds up. 3) engineers start noticing the accumulation on the input pipe, and installing filters on all the pipes. Less new crud gets in, and what gets through is delayed by the filters. 4) big, obvious clumps get cleaned up. 5) as people get used to swimming in a crud-free pool, they get more sensitive to smaller clumps, which are cleaned up as they are noticed. It is evident that there are still some big nasty bits.

The explicit rule about lead generation sites is fairly new, but experienced editors will have seen many of the problems caused by massive abuse, both by submitters and ditors. When we considered what criteria might distinguish between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" lead generation sites, we basically realized that no such distinction could possibly be made. We review sites by the information they give ... but all information sucking sites are alike: all equally unreviewable, and therefore equally unlistable. That, and the aforementioned abuse, is why you see some of those sites currently in the directory. Thanks for bringing these to our attention: obviously we need another round of cleanup.

Re: Multiple Listings in sorted order >If a meta would use that list, I would be glad to crawl these bulk free hosting places! I think DMOZ could be really clean itself if more attention was given to automating the checking of the bulk top 100 hosts. Check for 404s on those hosts. We check for 404s, but I believe you are right in thinking that a check for known "terminated account" strings would catch a lot more dead "free sites." If you produced this, I believe I can guarantee that it would be used (and not just by metas, this is prime editall-permissions territory.) Please try it out and let us know what you find.

Re: A tactfully-phrased question. I did look at several sites while I was in there. But I've looked again: - I cannot confirm the British pounds, so that must have been another site. (they all look alike...) - I am still seeing Javascript errors. - I am still not seeing contact information. - I still can't either confirm or deny that it's an affiliate site.

Re: Technically, it may be true that lack of content address is not an absolute bar to getting an ODP listing. But the site lists prices in British pounds and yet does not give a contact address, so it may have been deleted for being an illegal site. Or it may have been deleted because of repeated Javascript errors when viewed on the Infernal Exploder. Or it may have been deleted because some editor more clever than I figured out that it was an affiliate site--which is one possibility that an editor must always consider*. *(Remember that it is not the editor's responsibility to add every site that manages to conceal its affiliate status so cleverly that we can't detect it. Nor is it to prove to anyone that a site is an affiliate. It's simply to add sites that demonstrably add value to the directory by their unique content. I couldn't do that here, because it was too difficult to find the unique content -- even if all the other possible problems had been addressed.)

Since it doesn't appear to be published writing, it's been moved to Arts/Online_Writing per the category guidelines.

>Sure we are starting out, we only have around 100 b&b's listed, but if we had a 1000 your telling me that even that isnt enough, come on. How many places of accomodation are there in Glasgow? I see, um, .... one. The ODP lists, um, 47. And if you had ten, that wouldn't be enough. That seems pretty simple. That's only one sample. I didn't look at every town in Scotland. No editor will. We'd look at enough places (picked at random) to get a feel for the total size. (If that matched what the site claimed, we might use the site's own number.) Next time, I'd pick different localities, not all the same size. On the other hand, if the site had on the same order of magnitude as the ODP did, and there was some evidence that it was growing faster, or focused on a particular niche that the ODP had so far neglected, then it might be worth considering. Aside: many visitors, including editors, will find the site name deceptive, as it does not in fact exclusively list b&b's, or apparently even focus on them. That is not the first impression that most people would have wanted to convey. And it leads the editor to worry about the probability of a bait-and-switch setup. Finally, hotel directories are, of all the kinds of spam we see, one of the most maliciously deceptive. This isn't saying your site is one of the 99.5+%: just a reminder of the reality: you are floating with the pond scum, and you're going to have to be prepared to deal with fungicides. Anything that indicates a pattern of deception is going to get you classified with the cyanobacteria

>Could you tell me how many b&b's we require listed on our site before being considered? Not really. But you should consider that the Open Directory is itself a directory, listing B&Bs, among other things. To be considered, a directory site needs to have unique content (that is, beyond what the OD contains.) That is a standard that just keeps getting higher and higher, and the reality is that nearly all directories just starting out now will find themselves falling further and further behind. You should not be surprised if your site is one of them. If there is a site search problem, when it's fixed you could ask for a re-review: but even ten times the content I found would probably not have made the site a useful addition to the Open Directory.

All shopping/clothing categories have long backlogs, and you should expect a very long wait.

Does it really have more ODP submittals than bed-and-breakfast listings, as my sampling seems to indicate? Rejected, multiple times, ostensibly and plausibly for "lack of content."

I don't know that the site deserves to be rejected. If it doesn't, then only the other temporal limit is applicable.

Sorry, the only possible answer is "forever, or until you understand the guidelines well enough to know why it ought to have been rejected."

Word to the wise: the average time for a site to be reviewed is three to six months. This thread will still be there then: if the site isn't listed, bump the thread.

There are hundreds of unreviewed sites there. Be prepared for a very long wait.

>You're not going to find it seaching for "Brisbane Accommodation" even when the search index is updated. True. Remember, though, that nobody will be looking for "Brisbane Accommodation" on dmoz.org search except you and the other metro-area-hotel-webmasters. How you're found at Google and the _real_ search engines will depend on the text on your homepage.

Lead generator sites are not listable.

Rejected per the current guidelines. (MLM sites may have been acceptable nine months ago, but aren't now.)